The Rebirth of XCOM: See the Original Pitch Video and a Commentary

XCOM: Enemy Unknown comes out in less than a week, and while we've written about it multiple times and even played it ourselves, we've always wondered how Firaxis initially proposed the idea of another turn-based entry for the franchise. The answer, it turns out, is simple: they made an awesome pitch video that showed their initial ideas for a modern take on XCOM, used it to build up a new team and the rest, as they say, is history.

Check out the video below for yourselves. It features a great introduction from XCOM: Enemy Unknown Lead Designer Jake Solomon, then has the full, original pitch video. It concludes with a brief discussion between myself and Solomon, breaking down why they changed some aspects of the game between the initial pitch and the final product.

Lastly, why not check out a new, half-hour long gameplay commentary with Solomon, Lead Producer Garth DeAngelis and GameSpy Editor-in-Chief Dan Stapleton? They break down strategy, units, the various difficulties and even give some clues on how to cheat in XCOM when it releases on October 9th.

Anthony Gallegos is an Editor on IGN's PC team. He enjoys scaring the crap out of himself with horror games and then releasing some steam in shooters like Blacklight and Tribes. You can follow him on Twitter and on IGN.

Source : feeds[dot]ign[dot]com Read More

Obama Miscalculated Politics of Terrorism

“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now.”

-- A “senior American law enforcement official” talking to the New York Times about the fact that the scene of a successful terrorist attack against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya is too dangerous for FBI agents to visit.

Today in Iraq, there was a massive prison break in which dozens of baddies broke out of a prison in Saddam Hussein’s hometown. The inmates, including suspected al Qaeda members, took control of the prison and then shot their way out, leaving 10 guards dead.

The scariest part of the proposition is that al Qaeda members on the outside may have helped their comrades pull it off.

This is bad news for the West in general as it shows another sign of al Qaeda regaining a foothold in the Middle East after many years in decline. Just as prior to the U.S.-led war on the organization that began after the 9/11 attacks, the organization is finding weak, wicked or unstable countries in which to operate.

But this is also bad news for the re-election hopes of President Obama, who has pinned his re-election strategy on a three-point argument: Republican nominee Mitt Romney is a scoundrel unfit for the office and, as Vice President Joe Biden often says, Usama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive.

Leaving aside the fact that General Motors is still on federal life support, the argument is a potent one.

The daring raid that killed bin Laden was the high point of Obama’s term. While he had greater accomplishments, particularly his more than $1 trillion in stimulus measures, his 2010 health law and a massive package of bank regulations, those things were mostly unpopular. Killing the most hated man in what was once known as Christendom is all upside.

This perception of Obama as the vanquisher of al Qaeda was not only reinforced by the president’s frequent mentions of it but by leaks from the administration that cast Obama as a philosopher/warrior contemplating a kill list for his armada of drones and weighing carefully his power of life and death over his enemies.

The only times Obama has much talked about radical Islamist terrorism in the campaign, he has sought to reinforce the notion that the war is won and he won it. He promises constant vigilance, but suggests that the season of anxiety for the nation is over.

Imagine then, the alarm that rose within Team Obama when on the anniversary of  the 9/11 attacks, terrorists pulled off a daring, successful attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the American ambassador and three others.

Thanks to the reporting of FOX News colleague Bret Baier, we now know that the administration had evidence that the killings were part of a terrorist attack. For Islamists to have pulled off such as strike on Sept. 11 was bad enough. That they did it in a nation where NATO had just installed a new government was worse.

After months of vouching for the ascendant Islamist movement across the region as moderate and peaceful, the president found his own ambassador killed at the hands of Islamists.

Compounding the problem for Obama was that he was already feeling a squeeze of foreign policy. It had been reported that the president wasn’t taking most of his daily intelligence briefings in person, preferring to read a written report on his iPad. Meanwhile, Republicans and Israelis were ramping up the pressure on the president to take a harder line against Iran’s nuclear program and the theocracy’s ally in Syria.

This was not a helpful time to have al Qaeda suddenly show itself capable of such a brazen attack, especially if the administration did not take adequate steps to prepare for such a strike – especially not in an election year.

The public response from the president and his team was to not discuss the attack but instead focus on a internet clip of a never-made movie that mocked the founder of Islam, Mohammed. The picture painted by Team Obama was of downtrodden Muslims understandably offended by such blasphemy being whipped into a violent frenzy by opportunists, with the rioters being sort of the bitter clingers of Cairo and Benghazi.

But after more than a week of focusing on the film and not the attack – including a stunning turn by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday shows – the administration began opening the door to the existence of an Islamist plot and a deliberate attack. The word was getting out and it was time to get ahead of the issue.

But it was too late. As details began to emerge, officials scrambled to show their tough-minded stance on terrorism. The White House press secretary, the secretaries of State and Defense and others all stood up. But not the president, from whose lips the T word have never passed when it comes to the Libya attack.

When talking to female voters while being “eye candy” on daytime chat shows or addressing world leaders at the U.N., the president instead continued to focus on the YouTube clip, denouncing it as a provocation as well as the response of the provoked. After all, if all the Islamist warriors have been killed by SEALs or drones or scattered to the four corners of the earth, how could there be an attack by Islamist warriors?

But in trying to duck and cover on the nature of the attack, the president has worsened and prolonged his political discomfort on the issue. Rather than stepping out early on to show his command and control, the president is left trying to explain the gaps and lapses in the story he and his team told.

His decision to diminish the attack may have looked like a smart political move at the time, but it is proving to be a serious miscalculation.

Whether it’s the Libya debacle, the prison break in Iraq, the slaughter in Syria or Iran’s nuclear defiance, there are lots of signs now that things are heading the wrong way in the Middle East.  And it’s happening as the president makes his closing argument that America is stronger and more respected abroad than when he took office.

These problems go not only to the argument on foreign policy but also Obama’s claims on transparency and vigilance. And it’s a most unfortunate moment to have such a scandal.

And Now, A Word From Charles

“I'm atoned, I'm clean, and ready for sinning again. I'm glad Juan is here so I can gratuitously irritate him and get the year off on the right foot.”

-- Charles Krauthammer on “Special Report with Bret Baier.”


Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News, and his POWER PLAY column appears Monday-Friday on FoxNews.com. Catch Chris Live online daily at 11:30amET  at  http:live.foxnews.com.

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More

Pundits punk'd by satirical claims Ryan dissed Romney

Memo to the media: Clearly mark political satire, especially if it makes Republicans look bad. Otherwise, you might fool a Nobel prize-winning New York Times columnist.

Columnist Paul Krugman and other commentators were apparently duped Wednesday after Politico ran a satire piece that included what -- if true -- would have been an inflammatory comment by Republican running mate Paul Ryan. 

Politico took its inspiration from a quote, attributed to a GOP operative, that actually ran in The New York Times. The operative reportedly said that if Ryan ever runs for national office again, “he’ll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him.”

The Politico piece then blended that into satire – fantasy for some – with reporter Roger Simon writing that Ryan had taken to calling his running mate “Stench.” In fact, Ryan was so embarrassed to be part of Mitt Romney’s “floundering” campaign, Simon wrote, that he was openly sneering at the man on top of his ticket.

"Paul Ryan, I am sure, calls Mitt Romney something more dignified than 'Stench.'”

- Roger Simon, Politico

“If Stench calls, take a message,” Ryan supposedly had been telling aides. “Tell Stench I’m having finger sandwiches with Peggy Noonan and will text him later,” Simon quoted Ryan as saying. 

Krugman, a blogger for MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and a host of other liberal pundits fell for Simon's satire -- apparently finding the quote too good to not be true.

“Can I say that even though I’m not exactly a fan of Mitt Romney’s, this is just bad behavior?” wrote Krugman on his Times blog “The Conscience of a Liberal.” “You’re supposed to wait until it’s actually over before you do this kind of thing.”

Liberal talk radio host Taylor Marsh was giddy.

“Ryan is trying to save himself so he can live to run another day,” she wrote on her website. “Roger Simon’s piece has spread like wildfire and is causing a gigantic ripple.”

Hours later, word got around that Simon had made it all up. Even the part about how Romney had taken to calling Ryan “Gilligan.” Some of the folks who got fooled groused about it being too subtle or not particularly funny.

"OK, the word is that this was really clumsy satire," Krugman wrote in a late entry to his blog.

Simon did include a note at the end of the column that explained his point -- even as he put himself in a league with some slightly better satirists: 

[Author’s note: Jonathan Swift did not really want Irish people to sell their children for food in 1729; George Orwell did not really want the clocks to strike thirteen in 1984; Paul Ryan, I am sure, calls Mitt Romney something more dignified than “Stench” and Microsoft did not invent PowerPoint as a means to euthanize cattle. At least I am pretty sure Microsoft didn’t.]

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More

For New York Times, 9/11 anniversary not fit for front page

For The New York Times, the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks was not news fit to print – at least not on the front page.

America’s “paper of record," headquartered just three miles north of Ground Zero, dramatically scaled back its coverage of the latest anniversary of the attacks, in which terrorist flew planes into the Twin Towers, killing thousands. In typical Times fashion, the decision sparked hand-wringing and introspection among the Old Gray Lady’s top brass.

“In subsequent years, we do have to mark these moments, but it will be in a more modest way.”

- Carolyn Ryan, New York Times metropolitan editor

“Some anniversaries offer a natural reflection point,” Metropolitan Editor Carolyn Ryan told Margaret Sullivan, the paper’s public editor, an on-the-payroll watchdog. “Last year’s 10th anniversary of 9/11 surely fit that category. “In subsequent years, we do have to mark these moments, but it will be in a more modest way.”

Sullivan wondered if it was enough. She noted that on the 10th anniversary of one of America’s darkest days, the Times published “an ambitious special section, along with major stories on the days leading up to the anniversary.”

But what Sullivan dubbed “anniversary journalism” often finds little to cover outside of related local events, she said.

“There isn’t always much to say that is original,” Sullivan wrote.

The Times did manage to run stories about infighting among politicians regarding development at Ground Zero and, on Sept. 10, an investigative report laying some of the blame on intelligence-gathering failures by the Bush administration.

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, said the Times owed more to its readers, especially those in its hometown.

“It’s disgraceful on two levels," Bozell said. "First, as a national issue, this being the single deadliest attack on America since Pearl Harbor. And, secondly, as a local issue. This is, after all, The New York Times, not the Honolulu Times.”

The Times' website did feature a 9/11 story on the homepage Tuesday morning, and the site was updated with remembrance stories and coverage of the day prominently displayed.

Other New York metro area pages such as the New York Daily News, Long Island-based Newsday, and the Newark Star-Ledger featured front page coverage of the anniversary. The New York Post did not carry a 9/11 story on its front page, though tabloids typically can only feature one story on the front page, while the Times will carry a minimum of five.

The lack of coverage could be attributed to less emphasis on local news from New York City.

“New York is still part of our DNA and important to the soul of the publication, but the actual metro area has, over time, been not the main part of our print readership. And online it’s more of an international and national audience,” Times managing editor Jill Abramson said during an appearance in August on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.

Readers expressed disappointment with the editorial choice on the message board of Sullivan’s online column.

“’The amount of journalism, however, must. 'MUST?' I am sorry, but who are you to say what 'must' and 'mustn't' with regard to this tragedy?,” said one person commenting from London.

“I'm not sure if, as public editor, you are entrusted with the care and feeding of the historical element of the Times, but must say that I think it's an error to completely omit any mention of 9/11 from the front page today,” wrote another person from California.

“If the city of New York is, as Jill Abramson said, part of the Times' DNA, it's necessary to relate to the people of the city who will never get over this anniversary. They still constitute a hefty majority and consequently one hopes a significant part of your readership. I am a newsperson and a transplanted New Yorker, and 9/11, 11 years on, still merits Page One of the Times to me. Even if it were two grafs and a jump.”

Source : foxnews[dot]com Read More

Report: EA Sought to Acquire Valve

Electronic Arts was apparently prepared to pay up to $1 billion in order to acquire Valve, according to a new report.

The New York Times claims to have seen a report which lists the various opportunities Gabe Newell has had to sell the company in the past.

"Valve has been pursued over the years by Electronic Arts, which would very likely have valued Valve at well over $1 billion had the talks progressed that far," it explains.

The article goes on to say the claims come courtesy of "two people with knowledge of the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private".

Why said talks broke down isn't clear, especially given that EA's COO Peter Moore recently voiced his support for the company, describing them as being "on the cutting edge of the future of this industry". It may have something to do with Valve co-founder Gabe Newell, who has apparently long been convinced that the company would "disintegrate" if it was ever bought by another company.

"It’s way more likely we would head in that direction than say, ‘Let’s find some giant company that wants to cash us out and wait two or three years to have our employment agreements terminate,’ he said.

Had the deal gone through, EA would have gotten quite the bargain; Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter estimates that Valve would today be valued at around $2.5 billion, mainly thanks to its Steam digital distribution service. The company is also believed to make far more money from Steam than it does from actual sales of its own games.

This number only looks set to go up, especially with the recent news that the company will be "jumping in" to hardware development.

Luke Karmali is IGN's UK Editorial Assistant. You too can revel in mediocrity by following him on IGN and on Twitter.

Source : feeds[dot]ign[dot]com Read More